Passed the game try

[Phil]

ACBL Land.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sqjthkxdxxckqt9xx&w=s6xxxh8daxxxcaxxx&e=sk9ha9xxxdkxxxcjx&s=sa8xxhqjt7xdqjtcx]399|300|Scoring: MP

EW Silent

pass - 1♥;

2♣* - 2♥**

3♣ - AP

 

2♣ is alerted as Reverse Drury.

2♥ was not alerted.

 

 

East is on lead and 'knows' that partner has a heart void, so he underleads his A♥. This loses the heart ruff, so NS make nine tricks in clubs.

 

Adjust or not? [/hv]

[Cascade]

We need more information to make a ruling.

 

Like is reverse Drury their agreement and does that 100% guarantee a fit.

 

It would seem if not then that ought to have been disclosed.

[blackshoe]

Explaining a conventional call by naming the convention is inadequate disclosure, so "Reverse Drury" isn't good enough. Wayne is right - we need to know more about NS's agreed methods.

 

Apparently East doesn't know much - in Reverse Drury, 2♥ ordinarily shows a substandard opening, and could be a four card suit. So it's by no means certain that his partner is void. Besides, what's the purpose in underleading? He can't get more than ace and a ruff in the suit in any case.

[inquiry]

I am going to have to point out that the 1H opener had a SINGLETON ***** club. There is no way south can pass 3♣ without something wrong with the given explainations or -- more likely -- a starled look on someone's face at the explaination of 2♣ as drury.

 

I am sorry, one might easily justify not adjusting the score == at least for NS == but something not right happened here, as evident from south's pass with a stiff club.

[blackshoe]

In original Drury, iirc, 2♣ followed by 3♣ showed precisely the hand North holds. Perhaps they're playing it that way. There's still the disclosure problem, of course, but not necessarily a UI problem.

[Phil]

I doubt this partnership was on firm enough ground to know if RD promised a fit or not.

 

At the table they were discussing this point, and agreed after the hand that it should promise a fit, otherwise, opener can't jump to 4♥ with an unbalanced 14.

 

So I guess I would say "no agreement", but I'd be interested in your views if RD does promise a fit.

[Phil]

I am going to have to point out that the 1H opener had a SINGLETON ***** club. There is no way south can pass 3♣ without something wrong with the given explainations or -- more likely -- a starled look on someone's face at the explaination of 2♣ as drury.

 

I am sorry, one might easily justify not adjusting the score == at least for NS == but something not right happened here, as evident from south's pass with a stiff club.

Ben, what would you adjust the score to?

[blackshoe]

And using which laws?

[peachy]

Historically, Drury (or Reverse Drury) did not promise fit, but I have never encountered anybody who plays it that way; fit showing on the other hand is very common. "If" Drury was their agreement "and" it did not promise fit, the explanation was lacking. Lacking, in the same misleading genre as saying 1D (Dbl) is "Takeout Double" when in fact it just shows 13 points and can have 2-3-4-4 or any other distribution, including long diamonds.

 

Without any further facts in the OP case, such as possible UI presented by N when he heard the explanation, or, no system card to support what actual agreement was, I would not adjust. The damage was not related to the explanation. Opener can easily have only 4-card heart suit so underleading the ace in the hopes that opener had a five-card suit was a gamble that did not pay off.

[aguahombre]

East was on lead, and North did not disclose anything before that lead. Why not? If 2C was the old "either/or" drury both partners have had a chance to disclose that.

It is easy to say that East should have suspected something from South's final pass, or that the underlead was ill conceived. but trying to give pard a ruff at trick one without setting up their heart suit in the process is not totally stupid.

 

N/S should not skate on this one. "Adjust to what?" is a good question. "using what laws?" Sheesh, there must be something that requires proper disclosure. But maybe fit-guarantee drury is their agreement, and 3C thereafter has no meaning. Even then, South might disclose before the opening lead that he believes there has been a misunderstanding.

[Mbodell]

The acbl convention cards do have a check box for if drury shows a fit or not. When I play it, I usually show a fit, but I have played it before where it didn't promise a fit. I don't think you can assume that drury=fit. And I certainly don't think you can assume that if drury means fit, partner must be void (as pointed out a 4 card opening is possible given the minimum response).

 

3♣ would have to be to play for me and I would pass it by South if playing that drury didn't promise a fit. For me 3♣ as a passed hand over 1♥ would have been a fit jump, so this is the only way to show a hand with long clubs that decided not to open 3♣ to begin with.

[bluejak]

There is a presumption sometimes here [and in other similar forums] that everyone plays something one way. This is exactly the reason why the EBU, ACBL, and no doubt other jurisdictions tell everyone that a name is not enough.

 

Despite that, people on this forum assume a name is enough: it means that some convention is played the way they play it. Sorry: that is not the way it works.

 

Suppose you learnt Drury such that 2♣ then 3♣ shows clubs and no fit, as I did. It comes up, you describe it as Drury, which is your understanding: how would you like this sort of comment:

 

I am going to have to point out that the 1H opener had a SINGLETON ***** club. There is no way south can pass 3♣ without something wrong with the given explainations or -- more likely -- a starled look on someone's face at the explaination of 2♣ as drury.

That's a libellous and totally unjustified comment. Of course you pass with a singleton: that is the way you play it, and the way others used to play it, even if few do these days, and called it Drury.

 

Suppose we have a sequence 1NT 2♣=Stayman 2♥ 3♣ which we play as a signoff. Would you accuse opener of bad ethics if he passed 3♣? Of course not.

 

So the first thing you do, if you are any sort of TD, is not to hurl accusations around, but to find out what this sequence means in this pair's agreements. If it is signoff, then you would expect it to be passed.

 

If, as I expect is very likely, this sequence shows clubs and signoff, no heart fit, then at least you know where you are. But was there MI?

 

Well, yes, insofar as a name is insufficient. But damage from it depends on how much of a beginner East is. Obviously, if he learnt bridge last year or earlier, he is not going to assume partner is void in hearts.

 

Now let us assume he is not a beginner. He can work out very easily that RHO has clubs and not hearts. That's easy. But what to do?

 

The solution is simple: lead a heart: if partner ruffs it, great. If, as you expect, partner does not, you look for the most credulous and stupid TD you can find and claim damage. But you have to find a really stupid one to believe you.

[Phil]

I hope I'm not the stupidest TD around!

 

Anyway, while I felt sympathy for East, I was considering adjusting to 2♥, which makes on the nose, so no 'blood'. The most (potentially) egregious thing NS did in my mind is that the alert might have woke up North that they were playing Drury in the first place. Passing 2♥ seems reasonable with ♥Kx, since aprtner 'rebid' the suit'

 

Without knowing whether or not 2♣ promised clubs was tough to do, because I couldn't parse what was going through the North player's mind and they did not have an agreement.

[blackshoe]

If they don't have an agreement, then the alert can't wake North up to one. OTOH, it can wake him up to the probability that South thinks they have one. In which case bidding 3♣ is "unauthorized panic", saying "no, you ninny, I have clubs!" But it sounds like you needed to investigate further.

[blackshoe]

I doubt this partnership was on firm enough ground to know if RD promised a fit or not.

 

At the table they were discussing this point, and agreed after the hand that it should promise a fit, otherwise, opener can't jump to 4♥ with an unbalanced 14.

 

So I guess I would say "no agreement", but I'd be interested in your views if RD does promise a fit.

Perhaps they didn't have an agreement as to whether 2♣ promised a heart fit, but did they have an agreement that it asked about opener's heart holding? Did they have an agreement as to the meaning of the 2♥ rebid? Did they have an agreement as to the meaning of the 3♣ rebid? Did North give any visible or audible reaction to South's alert of 2♣? If they had agreements regarding the meanings of the 2♥ and 3♣ rebids, what were those agreements?

 

Did they have system cards? What did those say?

 

You said upthread that "they didn't have an agreement" but it's unclear what you meant. About which call(s) did they have no agreement? What was your basis for that determination?

 

Lots of questions, I know. :P

[Phil]

I doubt this partnership was on firm enough ground to know if RD promised a fit or not.

 

At the table they were discussing this point, and agreed after the hand that it should promise a fit, otherwise, opener can't jump to 4♥ with an unbalanced 14.

 

So I guess I would say "no agreement", but I'd be interested in your views if RD does promise a fit.

Perhaps they didn't have an agreement as to whether 2♣ promised a heart fit, but did they have an agreement that it asked about opener's heart holding? Did they have an agreement as to the meaning of the 2♥ rebid? Did they have an agreement as to the meaning of the 3♣ rebid? Did North give any visible or audible reaction to South's alert of 2♣? If they had agreements regarding the meanings of the 2♥ and 3♣ rebids, what were those agreements?

 

Did they have system cards? What did those say?

 

You said upthread that "they didn't have an agreement" but it's unclear what you meant. About which call(s) did they have no agreement? What was your basis for that determination?

 

Lots of questions, I know. B)

Blackshoe:

 

They had an agreement about 2♥ in that it shows minimum. Many conventions are discussed in the club because things like Reverse Drury are popular. However, the conversation stops at the 3rd bid in a sequence, and the subject turns to the American Idol episode of the previous week, or their sciatica. So, no, they didn't have an agreement, however, if you polled these players or their peers, I'm pretty sure they would all think 3♣ was, "oh, partner must have forgot Reverse Drury, the poor thing". I sure won't hang myself with bidding that crummy five card heart suit again.

 

I wouldn't call the above statement an agreement between partners, but I would expect most players in this club to interpret 3♣ this way.

[awm]

It seems clear that MI has occurred on this auction. One of the following must have happened:

 

(1) When 2♣ was alerted, it was then explained as "reverse drury" without further elaboration. This is not a sufficient description of the method (giving the name is not sufficient) and the opponents were thereby mislead into thinking it shows a fit. Since the onus is on the describing side to provide a full explanation (rather than their opponents to continue asking questions until they are satisfied), giving only the name of a convention that is played in different ways by different people is insufficient.

 

(2) When 2♣ was alerted, it was explained as showing a fit, but then the 3♣ call "cancelled" the drury bid and just showed clubs. If this is the case, there was a failure to alert the 3♣ call as showing a "forget" of drury and cancelling the fit-showing meaning.

 

Either way, there was MI and the defending side was damaged. The ace underlead was dubious (after all, even assuming 2♣ shows 3+♥ it seems likely from the pass of 3♣ that opener would hold only four) but would certainly have been more likely to work if a fit was shown. I'd rule 3♣-1 for both sides. Not worth a procedural penalty or anything, but I'd inform the offending side that just saying the name of the convention is not sufficient disclosure and can easily confuse their opponents if they think a particular convention is played differently, and that instead the meaning of the call should be described.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't call the above statement an agreement between partners, but I would expect most players in this club to interpret 3♣ this way.

Would that include the EW pair at this table?

[bluejak]

It seems clear that MI has occurred on this auction. One of the following must have happened:

 

(1) When 2♣ was alerted, it was then explained as "reverse drury" without further elaboration. This is not a sufficient description of the method (giving the name is not sufficient) and the opponents were thereby mislead into thinking it shows a fit. Since the onus is on the describing side to provide a full explanation (rather than their opponents to continue asking questions until they are satisfied), giving only the name of a convention that is played in different ways by different people is insufficient.

I am not sure I agree with this. Certainly a name is insufficient, but everyone does it, and if you are going to take a very unlikely conclusion from a name I think not to protect yourself by checking they play it your way is not good enough.

 

To put it another way: I play a convention one way, you another, I describe it by name, you assume I play it your way, are we not both at fault?

 

Now add in the fact that from your hand you are sure [unless you are a beginner] that the opposition play it differently: do you not think you should ask?

 

"Ask do not assume": where have I read that?

 

(2) When 2♣ was alerted, it was explained as showing a fit, but then the 3♣ call "cancelled" the drury bid and just showed clubs. If this is the case, there was a failure to alert the 3♣ call as showing a "forget" of drury and cancelling the fit-showing meaning.

If it was described as showing a fit then there is MI, but the OP said otherwise [did it not?]. You cannot "cancel" an agreement: that means you never had the agreement in the first place.

 

Either way, there was MI and the defending side was damaged. The ace underlead was dubious (after all, even assuming 2♣ shows 3+♥ it seems likely from the pass of 3♣ that opener would hold only four) but would certainly have been more likely to work if a fit was shown. I'd rule 3♣-1 for both sides. Not worth a procedural penalty or anything, but I'd inform the offending side that just saying the name of the convention is not sufficient disclosure and can easily confuse their opponents if they think a particular convention is played differently, and that instead the meaning of the call should be described.

If East was a beginner then he may have been damaged: if he is not a beginner th he is trying a deliberate double shot. Of course the opponents do not have a fit.

[awm]

I am not sure I agree with this. Certainly a name is insufficient, but everyone does it, and if you are going to take a very unlikely conclusion from a name I think not to protect yourself by checking they play it your way is not good enough.

I think we disagree on likilihood here. Over here in the US (which is presumably where this took place) virtually everyone plays drury as confirming a fit. Assuming that something explained as "reverse drury" showed a fit would be a normal assumption. Certainly the non-offending side could have asked further follow-up questions, however the percentage of the drury-playing population playing that this sequence shows a fit is extremely high. It's not a case where there are two competing treatments which are roughly equally common and go by the same name.

[jdonn]

Drury always shows a fit for everyone I know with one exception (Marshall Miles). I know when it was invented it wasn't that way but as far as I knew until reading this everyone plays it that way and has for decades. Bluejak appears to play bridge on a planet which I have never been to, or maybe England is really that different from America. I'm now curious how other British posters understand "reverse drury".

[Phil]

I wouldn't call the above statement an agreement between partners, but I would expect most players in this club to interpret 3♣ this way.

Would that include the EW pair at this table?

yes

[Phil]

I think I should have asked this partnership if 1♥ - 2♣ - 4♥ is a possible auction without self-sufficient hearts in retrospect.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't call the above statement an agreement between partners, but I would expect most players in this club to interpret 3♣ this way.

Would that include the EW pair at this table?

yes

Then how were EW damaged? It seems they knew what was going on.

[Phil]

I wouldn't call the above statement an agreement between partners, but I would expect most players in this club to interpret 3♣ this way.

Would that include the EW pair at this table?

yes

Then how were EW damaged? It seems they knew what was going on.

(stifled groan)

 

If I know, and you know, but you don't know that I know, and I sure don't know that you know.....do we both 'know' :)